Sir, Jenny Hjul continues her personal attacks on anyone who intends to vote “yes” and in particular blames Alex Salmond for having the independence vote.
The voting system at Holyrood was not set up by the SNP but by Westminster and was intended to ensure the SNP would never have this opportunity. In the end the Scottish Labour Party (supervised by Westminster) had policies which all too many Scots found unacceptable and therefore did not vote for them.
So the blame lies with the Labour Party for assuming Scots would embrace the New Labour ethos instead of finding it smelled rather like old Tory.
After a “yes” vote it might be that some of the brighter intelligent Labour members of Westminster could join an independent Scotland and add some weight to the debate in Holyrood where at present the leader of the opposition simply uses personal attack, and poorly at that, as her strategy.
So, Jenny, the blame lies with the people who, against all the odds, lost the last election and not with the people who won it.
David Simpson. 12 Hewat Place, Perth.
The only way to win now?
Sir, I am persuaded to write having driven from Perth to Dundee one day recently. Understandably, and rightly, there are prominent signs for both Yes and No campaigns.
What is worrying is that whereas not one Yes notice is damaged, sadly, the majority of those supporting Better Together have been damaged in one way or another.
Such damage indicates to me that supporters of the Yes campaign either do not have confidence in their policies or those responsible really have decided that, with only a few weeks to go, the only way they can win is by intimidation.
Mike Beale. Pitkeathly Mill, Bridge of Earn, Perth.
Puts things into perspective
Sir, Craig and Charlie Reid, The Proclaimers, certainly put things into perspective when they said that they had not received any unionist backlash concerning their decision to vote “yes” in the forthcoming referendum.
Contrast this, if you will, with the abuse hurled at celebrities such as John Barrowman and J K Rowling who had the temerity to announce their allegiance to the “no” vote.
G E Muir. 70 Abbey Road, Scone.
We’ll be stuck with decision
Sir, I cannot believe we are being asked to decide the fate of our country when no one knows what is going to happen afterwards.
A wedge is being driven between siblings, families and friends. We could become another Northern Ireland or Ukraine. Am I just scaremongering? Think about it.
On top of this, if the utopia we are being promised does not happen we can’t say: “Stop the world we want to get off.” We are stuck with it!
May Sampson. Ladybank Road, Pitlessie.
How will it adapt?
Sir, There is surely never going to be complete agreement on how much oil remains in the North Sea or, indeed, how much it will be valued at over the coming decades. This is because we are talking about estimates, it’s not an exact science.
The one thing we do know for certain is that the oil will run out. I think it would be helpful, therefore, if both sides in the referendum debate gave a bit more attention to how the economy will need to adapt as oil becomes less available.
All politicians seem to say they will reduce carbon emissions but then continue to make policy decisions as if oil reserves will last for ever.
Robert Potter. Menzieshill Road, Dundee.
NHS claim is misleading
Sir, It is extremely telling that as the nationalists struggle to provide answers to the questions many Scots are asking, they instead resort to trying to scare voters.
The nationalists’ favourite scare story relates to the future of Scotland’s health service. Their misleading claim is that the reforms taking place in England will have an effect on Scotland’s NHS.
The NHS is fully run by the Scottish Parliament. The only people who can change what happens in the NHS in Scotland are ministers in the Scottish Government. The real risk to independence is the £6 billion of extra cuts the impartial experts, like the Institute for Fiscal Studies, say would be needed in the first few years of independence.
Avril Simpson. Welton Corner, Forfar.
We shouldn’t take gamble
Sir, Alex Salmond’s favourite saying appears to be: “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.” Yes voters should think on that as the referendum vote will be the biggest con by Alex Salmond and the SNP in the history of Scotland, and a disservice to all Scots.
Mr Salmond will not answer important questions and the estimates for oil, gas and other things are just wishful thinking. No EU means no farm subsidies and dearer food so more food banks.
Voting “no” for the status quo or better, is better than gambling with Alex’s shot in the dark.
Norman Ewan. 98 Dens Road, Dundee.
Careful consideration
Sir, Hurrah for Andrew Gilmour talking some honest common sense in his letter (August 18).
The ultimate beneficiaries of the production cycle of British farms are all of us who buy our food in our supermarkets and shops at prices that are, in many cases, below the level of production costs at the farm. Without the present SFP and CAP, many of our family-owned farms would go out of business.
What then for the provenance of the food we eat and associated animal welfare, to say nothing of landscape management, taken for granted by too many people but a substantial social and cultural contribution made by the many farms that constitute the UK farming sector?
UK farming standards have been developed over many years to present levels. Any party-political or nationalist sentiment that threatens the quality of our food production needs very careful consideration and thus far, there is no evidence that the proponents of independence have even begun to consider the matter, being content with broad-based aspirational statements that mean nothing at all without a strategic and tactical plan.
Derek Farmer. Knightsward Farm, Anstruther.
It looks like it is going to be a matter of trust
Sir, As September 18 draws ever closer the whole debate has now come down to a matter of trust!
No campaigners will continue to insist that Scots are incapable of governing themselves. So much so, in fact, that they will possibly have convinced many who were undecided to join the unionist camp with nothing other than “scare tactics” and threats of what will happen post independence.
Is there an ulterior motive to these tactics? One would suggest yes, as those that are doing their best to intimidate the Scots, have interests in Westminster and the South East of England.
No one in the Yes camp has said that it will not take some effort to introduce a fair way of governance for Scotland, but it can be achieved if Scots are willing to work towards one.
This is not a time for us but for our children to govern their own future with an independent Scottish Government and on their own terms. After all, we will have to trust them at some time in the future to look after us in our old age.
Bob Harper. 63a Pittenweem Road, Anstruther.
Haven’t they read report?
Sir, Has the Scottish Government read the report of their Fiscal Commission Working Group that recommends our bold future? Their commission consists of money managers and academics who declare it’s in the best interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK to form a “monetary union” of the pound, once independence is secured.
We’re already in that union. Our Edinburgh government’s commission explains: “Monetary union is an agreement over the overall fiscal position of each member (ie net debt and borrowing).”
It’s that union the Yes campaigners want us to leave! That monetary union would be replaced, they say, with another union where Scotland would be free to set its own policies for debts and borrowing. How would Scotland get agreement if its borrowing plans will be so different?
Doesn’t our Edinburgh government realise that the union they want us to leave is the same union they want to agree our borrowing plans? Haven’t they read their commission’s report? This is not independence. It’s a recipe for never-ending quarrels.
Andrew Dundas. 34 Ross Avenue, Perth.
Won’t listen to anyone…
Sir, It seems that everyone who disagrees with an independent Scotland gets shouted down and argued with by the ever autocratic and arrogant Alex Salmond.
When the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott expressed concern about Scotland becoming independent as a world leader he has every right to do so he was almost vilified for it by Alex Salmond.
The same thing happened with Barack Obama and the Pope. Is there anyone Mr Salmond would listen to?
This argumentative boorish attitude will only get worse if in the highly unlikely event Scottish people vote yes. It makes me laugh that Mr Salmond thinks this type of behaviour will increase the “yes” vote.
Is the man suffering from delusions of grandeur?
Gordon Kennedy. 117 Simpson Square, Perth.